Search results

I would have been quite surprised if you did associate any of the 1st Century scenario with the Jewish War with Revelation. I believe Nero was understood to be "666" even by the first Christians. However, I don't have the sources handy to back up this claim, and I don't want to just give you a...

Very interesting, Bro. Clearly, His second advent is a very big deal. Could you clarify about when it would be the most populated?

I'm sure we agree that the beast of Rev 13:12 is also known as the False Prophet. I personally view the FP as Apostate Israel, who had joined with Rome. Admittedly, I'm not quite sure about the signs that he does in verse 13. The harlot (Apostate Israel, in my view) "sits" in an exotic way...

You are too kind, Brother. All I know for sure is that I won't really know for sure until He comes :). Until then, I'll go with my views, but I don't worry about it if someone has a different view. (Unless it's a point of your salvation, such as works vs grace, of course.)

I should clarify my views a bit, since we are looking at Revelation 13 and 17. These are just my personal views, and I could very easily be mistaken. In Rev 13:15, everyone who did not worship the image of the Beast was killed. I personally believe this fits in with emperor worship. The...

[EDIT] Yes, sir, I do take a historical view. However, I think this was apostate Israel's priesthood when they aligned with the Romans. Hope that makes sense. I will also agree that, in today's times, the "religion of the Beast" could easily fit both New Age / universalist teachings...

I believe this was about the apostate Jewish religion. Not the true Jewish religion, but one where the Jewish priests joined themselves to Rome in the 1st Century.

Note especially for @Calminian regarding the "date of Revelation" debate. Calminian said: ↑ The debate I posted will debunk this as well. The 65AD date, when you look at the evidence, is intellectual suicide. It's not even close. I feel very bad for all the people caught up in this false...

They don't necessarily debunk preterism. (Sorry, I should have clarified that.) Since you are going to be out, I'm not sure we will have that chance, because this thread will close in a few hours. Otherwise, I'd take you up on your offer. I will copy your text above and research it, though...

I think I see your point, Brother. However, it doesn't make sense, because it's still only one speech. If Jesus meant the entire world, Luke would have recorded it as such; if Jesus meant this was limited to Jerusalem, Matthew would have recorded it as such. Since this thread will close in a...

Not necessarily. While words have different meanings in the dictionary, it's their context that truly provides their meaning. That is, it's now how it COULD be used, but how WAS it used?

No. My response is from the fact that we have two different Greek words with two different meanings. Since we do agree in the inerrancy of Scripture, our only question is in what Jesus meant in this context. We cannot assume that He meant a worldwide event, as Matthew's gospel indicates, nor...

So your answer is to totally ignore Luke? Not even a discussion about it? And you expect us to take YOU seriously?

Let's take a Mulligan on this. So, to start again, in Matthew's account of the Olivet Discourse, the word for "world" is "kosmos", which indicates that the events that Jesus is speaking of will be worldwide. However, in Luke's account, the word for "world" is "oikumene", which indicates a...

That's not true, Brother. I acknowledged that Matthew used kosmos, but you totally disregarded Luke's use of oikumene. Then you decided to focus on my quotation mistake instead of addressing this question.

I addressed that right away, when I confessed that I was thinking of Matthew's version of the OD instead of Luke's. I've been up front the entire time. On the other hand, you have never addressed the oikumene question, except to claim this is from a different setting. It's well known that...

The way I see it, hanging on the "Futurist" view is the intellectually suicidal view. Too many holes, too many things you have to read into Scripture, making up gaps in time, etc. However, I will take the comparison to Hanegraaf as a high compliment, even though he is far more intelligent than...

I've seen Tommy Ice's arguments destroyed by Gary DeMar. I'm sure that Hanegraaf will have a great defense for the early dating of Revelation, just as Gentry does. I can't recommend his "Before Jerusalem Fell" highly enough. To be fair and balanced, I will take a look at the videos you have...

I was complicating what Scriptures are very clear about. Thanks, Brother.

Just to balance things out, you may want to watch Ken Gentry's "Early Date of Revelation" on YouTube. It's about 46 minutes long.